[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120924203750.GA28983@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:37:50 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] task_work: make task_work_add() lockless
On 09/24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > + while ((work = ACCESS_ONCE(*pprev))) {
> > + read_barrier_depends();
Hmm. This should be smp_read_barrier_depends(), but this doesn't matter.
> Woops, h8300 doesn't have read_barrier_depends():
> kernel/task_work.c:38:3: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'read_barrier_depends' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> make[2]: *** [kernel/task_work.o] Error 1
Thanks...
> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/7238385/
>
> Perhaps an empty definition is fine? Most architectures have:
>
> #define read_barrier_depends() do { } while(0)
Yes. arch/h8300/include/asm/barrier.h has
#define smp_read_barrier_depends() read_barrier_depends()
so probably it should define read_barrier_depends() as well ?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists